I downloaded the full resolution TIFF, and opened it in photoshop, and if you look close, you will see touch up artifacts all over that pic. They have blocked out all types of things all over that wall. You will see very distinctive squares that are obviously covering something up all over that picture. Download the hi rez and look for yourself.

Particularly on the left side of the pyramyd looking formation to the left of the pharaoh, there are very distinctive edits to the image, in very clear square shapes. Can anyone else confirm this?

They pyramid looks like it has a differentiated capstone, and a large "stripe" goes up and to the right from that. In that stripe, there are clear edits.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 967932

After enlarging the pic to max I can see the obvious edits, especially the large stripe you mention. Also, about a third of the way across the picture from the right edge, and about half way between the top and bottom of the pic (almost level with Pharaoh's head) look at the black rectangles (holes?) in the rocks. There are several of them and they don't look anything like natural formations. They are too symmetric to be natural.

Patriotism is supporting your country always -- and your government when they deserve it. Mark Twain

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords. -Benjamin Franklin

Please follow the link to the original image on NASA's site. Read the paragraph below. The whole side of that is only 12 meters. The "Pharaoh" in question can't be more than a few centimeters tall.

If this where some massive mountain side with a carved image a couple hundred feet high I might buy it. Erosion over the eons would take awhile on a large carving. However something as small as this is clearly just an anomaly of weather erosion.

Seeing what you want to and not what is actually there is a staple of this community.

After enlarging the pic to max I can see the obvious edits, especially the large stripe you mention. Also, about a third of the way across the picture from the right edge, and about half way between the top and bottom of the pic (almost level with Pharaoh's head) look at the black rectangles (holes?) in the rocks. There are several of them and they don't look anything like natural formations. They are too symmetric to be natural.

Quoting: T'bird

Too symmetrical to be natural? Oh is that a fact? Cuz there are plenty of very symmetrical things on Earth that are natural...and that is a proven fact.

Not saying aliens do not exist...just saying yall are looking so hard you refuse to see the truth.

Please follow the link to the original image on NASA's site. Read the paragraph below. The whole side of that is only 12 meters. The "Pharaoh" in question can't be more than a few centimeters tall.

If this where some massive mountain side with a carved image a couple hundred feet high I might buy it. Erosion over the eons would take awhile on a large carving. However something as small as this is clearly just an anomaly of weather erosion.

Seeing what you want to and not what is actually there is a staple of this community.

THIS

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 910386

There are clear edits to this photo, there is no denying that. With that in mind, why should we believe that they are tellin the truth as to the size of the cliff.

Yall do realize this cliff from its lowest point to its highest point is only 30 some feet tall?

That is not that high at all.

Learn to figure out how big the cliff is before making insane analysis of it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 910386

Look brainiac, have you considered that maybe the people living on Mars are all very small??? Like if Mars people were only 2 or 3 inches tall, a 12 inch statue would be HUUUUUUUUGE to them!!! HUUUUUUUUUUGE!!!!!1

What I do find extremely interesting that nobody has seemed to notice, or at least hasn't said anything about is, I reviews all the images in series from PIA10209.tif up to PIA10216.tif. 9, 10, and 11 are all of the same same cliff, which I personally doubt is only 39 feet tall. Regardless, in examining the 3 images, the image we are all questioning, ending in 10, is the smallest file size of the 3, with the next largest image being double the size. Image 9, in tiff format, is 44.8 megs, image 10 is 15.6 megs, and image 11 is 30.5 megs. This, in my mind, poses the question, why? Since it is highly unlikely the camera switched in to a lower resolution for the middle image, I, having a strong background in graphics and video production, can only conclude it was a side effect of the image manipulation process used to edit the image. Which then begs the question, why, if images 9 and 11 were left un-doctored, was the image in question modified prior to being posted on the official site? What was in it that was so important, it had to be modified prior to allowing the image out to the public?

These are not stitched images as in 12+, they are single frame stills, so what reason other than obfuscation of the truth could there be to manipulate the image in question?

So while some of you would deny the existence of other life forms even while you were strapped to a table with a probe up yer wazoo, I think it will be hard to deny the image was manipulated. Artifacts a side, of which there are many, an image half the size of the one before it, and 1/3rd the size of the very next image makes it suspect regardless of the already detected anomalies.

I also found that large rock with the flat bottom in the foreground about almost halfway between dead center and the left edge of the image suspect. It appears to me like the head of a dog dislodged from a statue and leaning on it's left ear with the face facing right. Almost like the top of a sphinx.. but that's just my own personal opinion and observation, the file sizes are fact.

This, in my mind, poses the question, why? Since it is highly unlikely the camera switched in to a lower resolution for the middle image, I, having a strong background in graphics and video production, can only conclude it was a side effect of the image manipulation process used to edit the image. Which then begs the question, why, if images 9 and 11 were left un-doctored, was the image in question modified prior to being posted on the official site? What was in it that was so important, it had to be modified prior to allowing the image out to the public?

These are not stitched images as in 12+, they are single frame stills, so what reason other than obfuscation of the truth could there be to manipulate the image in question?

This, in my mind, poses the question, why? Since it is highly unlikely the camera switched in to a lower resolution for the middle image, I, having a strong background in graphics and video production, can only conclude it was a side effect of the image manipulation process used to edit the image. Which then begs the question, why, if images 9 and 11 were left un-doctored, was the image in question modified prior to being posted on the official site? What was in it that was so important, it had to be modified prior to allowing the image out to the public?

These are not stitched images as in 12+, they are single frame stills, so what reason other than obfuscation of the truth could there be to manipulate the image in question?

Himie

Finally! Someone gets "it".

Very well said Himie!

Quoting: 3's and 7's 1132928

IT WAS EDITED BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT MOVED BETWEEN FRAMES/SHOTS

What I do find extremely interesting that nobody has seemed to notice, or at least hasn't said anything about is, I reviews all the images in series from PIA10209.tif up to PIA10216.tif. 9, 10, and 11 are all of the same same cliff, which I personally doubt is only 39 feet tall. Regardless, in examining the 3 images, the image we are all questioning, ending in 10, is the smallest file size of the 3, with the next largest image being double the size. Image 9, in tiff format, is 44.8 megs, image 10 is 15.6 megs, and image 11 is 30.5 megs. This, in my mind, poses the question, why? Since it is highly unlikely the camera switched in to a lower resolution for the middle image, I, having a strong background in graphics and video production, can only conclude it was a side effect of the image manipulation process used to edit the image. Which then begs the question, why, if images 9 and 11 were left un-doctored, was the image in question modified prior to being posted on the official site? What was in it that was so important, it had to be modified prior to allowing the image out to the public?

These are not stitched images as in 12+, they are single frame stills, so what reason other than obfuscation of the truth could there be to manipulate the image in question?

So while some of you would deny the existence of other life forms even while you were strapped to a table with a probe up yer wazoo, I think it will be hard to deny the image was manipulated. Artifacts a side, of which there are many, an image half the size of the one before it, and 1/3rd the size of the very next image makes it suspect regardless of the already detected anomalies.

I also found that large rock with the flat bottom in the foreground about almost halfway between dead center and the left edge of the image suspect. It appears to me like the head of a dog dislodged from a statue and leaning on it's left ear with the face facing right. Almost like the top of a sphinx.. but that's just my own personal opinion and observation, the file sizes are fact.

The antediluvian's achieved space flight an colonized mars and built the pyramids there at the same time they were building them here including those in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America and the proof is that they glorify the Zodiac Sign of Taurus placing them in the Age of Taurus at around 4KBC (four thousand years before Christ), which perfectly agrees with the Egyptologists.

If my websites do not load its because I've been Black Listed like here on GLP - note my signiature below and they won't let me post YouTubes anymore - gee, I wonder why?